On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:22 PM, Mike Godwin <mgodwin(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Anthony writes:
Are you
just making this up off the top of your head?
Is that an appropriate response? Surely one of your "assume good
faith"
memes would be appropriate here, wouldn't it?
I feel certain that this is at least as appropriate a response as
asking me whether I learned something in law school (remember?).
So you're just going tit-for-tat with me? Is that it? If so, fine, we're
even. Now can we get back to something productive?
Oh shit. That was a rhetorical question, wasn't it? Damn, now I get
another tat. See where the tit-for-tat is leading us?
But if you can't source your notion about how no rights are in
conflict, I certainly understand and sympathize.
Well, no, I can't source it. I don't know exactly *where* I got this notion
of rights. It happened a long time ago, when I was first learning about the
term. That said, I've googled around and it does seem that there is a
philosophical debate on exactly this question. I think it's mostly a
semantic argument, though I also think there is a deeper question as to
whether or not humans are fundamentally in conflict with each other (a
question which I would tentatively answer in the negative, though I admit
that I haven't studied the question enough to be sure about my answer).
That's a
wonderfully misanthropic, cynical view. I imagine you're
quite proud of it.
Again a very educated
and informative response.
I was offering my opinion, is all. I think the idea that "assume good
faith" does not improve the memetic environment -- and may even
degrade it -- to be misanthropic and cynical. You of course are free
to disagree.
I completely agree that you think that way. It's not particularly useful
for me to know this, though.
I see
you've incorporated
the "ad hominem" meme quite well.
I don't understand your use of the term "ad hominem" here.
Instead of attacking my idea, you attacked me.